General Debate 4th November 2012

November 4th, 2012 at 11:56 am by Kokila Patel

Sorry for late posting everyone – Kokila

Tags:

137 Responses to “General Debate 4th November 2012”

  1. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Boomshanker!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Re: the US election. White House Insider thinks Romney will win, and the only way Obama could win is if he steals the election (which he may) by underhanded means.
    This is how he thinks it will go down –

    Virginia:  We got 13 electorals up for grabs to get the night rolling. Romney takes it by about 60-70 thousand votes.   McDonnell has done some very solid work for us in the state and that has been a big advantage.

    Pennsylvania:  Some major trending for the governor right now that is being totally under-reported by the media.  Some counties looking like they will be upwards of 70% Romney.  #s will be played tight via media reports during early hours of election night, but watch for a call by around 8:30 or so for the governor.  And that my friend, is when the entire liberal establishment really starts to do the backside pucker.  The campaign is leaving off Nevada in favor of Pennsylvania this weekend.  Much bigger prize.  Romney by upwards of 200 thousand votes.  Something a lot of the pundits and pollsters are leaving out on the coverage of Pennsylvania is Governor Corbett.  He’s been a major player in that state’s power structure for some time, and was a very popular Attorney General there before winning election as governor in 2010.  He knows how to defeat Democrats, been doing it for the last couple decades.  Beat his Dem opponent in 2010 by almost 10 points.  Great ground game and that will pay dividends for us on Tuesday.

    North Carolina:  Romney.  Early call.

    Florida:  Romney wins this by about 100,000 votes.  The Jewish and Cuban votes are putting him well over the top here.  Florida is always a big win for the one who gets it, and this time it’s the governor’s.

    Wisconsin:  Like McDonnell in Virginia, Walker has really helped with the ground game structure in Wisconsin.  Incredible work due largely to that structure already being in place for the recent recall vote.  Huge pick-up for the governor.  The beginning of the “turn out the lights” moment for the Obama campaign.  Romney by 30,000 votes which is a huge reversal from 2008.  Something interesting has been happening in Wisconsin the last couple years.  Major shift toward conservatism.

    Iowa:  Romney is going to sneak this one out by maybe 5-10 thousand votes.  Very tight race.  Good news is, we don’t need the state.  A pick-up here is a bonus.

    Colorado:  By now the country will have a very good idea we have elected a new president.  Romney will take Colorado by upwards of a 100,000 votes. Maybe a bit more.  Like Wisconsin, a big shift away from the 2008 Obama #s.

    Oregon:  This is my you gotta be crazy call but I mentioned it to you before and I’m sticking to it.  The most recent poll out there had Obama up six.  That poll was a small sample though, and half that sample came from residents of Portland.  The real deal is this, the state is basically split between the two candidates and has a huge % of undecideds who in the end will break for the governor.  A late night shocker that will give the governor the ability to call this a mandate election.

    Now you probably see I haven’t mentioned Ohio.  A couple reasons.  Don’t trust the voting out there. I know things can be rigged there more than other states with very few exceptions. (Nevada)  That’s just the facts.  The Romney team has done a good job of trying to stay ahead of that possibility so I’m hoping for the best but my gut says prepare for the worst.  Good news is that Ohio is shaping up to be a state we won’t need if my Pennsylvania prediction holds up.  If the governor takes Pennsylvania and Ohio, we got our electoral landslide.

    My #s right now, with all the data I’ve compiled, all my experience, and that gut feeling I told you about, has the governor circling about 300 electorals on Tuesday with the chance for a bit more than that if trending really pops for us in the final 48 like we saw happen for Reagan back in ’80.

    Now try and enjoy the weekend.  Actually, I’ll end with this and I really mean it here.  Know I’ve said it already but want to repeat it.    If Barack Obama is re-elected on Tuesday they stole it.  There is no way my straight up #s are that off.  They will have stolen this election.  Buried votes, multiple counts, all of that will have been done and to such a degree they risk exposure.  But they might be willing to risk it.  Ok, that probably doesn’t leave you in the right frame of mind to enjoy your weekend but wanted to say it again.  Don’t underestimate the Romney team here though.  They have been notified multiple times about this stuff and have the resources to make that kind of stealing much more difficult than previous elections.  So while it’s a concern, it’s not something I’m losing sleep over.  Not that I sleep much anyways these days.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/11/02/white-house-insider-tuesday-election-break-down-how-romney-wins/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    Yep, heaps of people in Ohio punch Romney but the screen says Obama, nothing to see here, move along. Democrats are frauds. Amazing Casper the Ghost does not have a vote, oh wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    Here’s Steyne on Sandy, oBamby and Tuesday -

    “…..I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try – and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse. Look at Lower Manhattan in the dark, and try to imagine what America might look like after the rest of the planet decides it no longer needs the dollar as global reserve currency. For four years, we have had a president who can spend everything but build nothing. Nothing but debt, dependency, and decay. As I said at the beginning, in different ways the response to Hurricane Sandy and Benghazi exemplify the fundamental unseriousness of the superpower at twilight. Whether or not to get serious is the choice facing the electorate Tuesday…”

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/president-376580-government-new.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    Saw Norman, Williams, Parker on FTN, oh my god, this is the brains trust for 2014-7.
    Will be fun to watch and at least my mortgage on my family home will be inflated away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lazybum (259 comments) says:

    On US election, I think the Kenyan will scrape home, hope not, but I think this will be the case.

    At least USA is a demoracracy, unlike NZ according to my sons relief teacher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    More woes for home owners.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7903893/Unit-owners-blindsided-by-quake-fix-costs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Sofia (819 comments) says:

    Pike River families spokesman Bernie Monk –
    “Even when I talked to the prime minister the other day, he said that their experts said it was unsafe to do. But their experts, as I said to him, blew the mine up another three times after the first explosion.”

    Did we miss something here? Experts blew the mine up three times? Is that in the about-to-be-released Commission Report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    NZ not a democracy.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    So Fletch, according to your muse, Romney is going to win every swing state that matters and where he doesn’t it’s because the Democrat’s have secretly gamed the system.

    You will excuse me for detecting a not insignificant dollop pf part bias, won’t you?

    By the way, I know where the computer system is that Obama operates.

    It’s in Area 51.

    Along with the dummy moon landing stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. iMP (2,232 comments) says:

    OUCHY…Whale a bit sensitive to having it pointed out someone was cut-n-pasting Kiwi to Whale (or the other way around) re eulogies to Greg King. Can liberally dish it out but can’t take it.

    Whaleoil Mod CoNZervative • an hour ago

    whatever, f**k off back to your Romney Felch-fest

    CoNZervative Whaleoil • 40 minutes ago

    So, you’re saying I’m wrong Cam and not telling the TRUTH? If you’re gonna pitch as NZ’s number one blogger, and now a NZ editor, stop just cutting and pasting others and write your own stuff, or at least attribute. Basic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. iMP (2,232 comments) says:

    Interesting post Fletch re US. Tnx.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Well you may well see less,tolerance to other opinions now that the national party has its own MSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    There are many discussions on this blog about the disconnect between the Left and ordinary people, and about how this is one of the main reasons that left-wing parties around the world have failed to make any real progress during tough economic times, the very periods when they should be doing well.

    But I have to say that only very rarely have I seen the gap so blatantly and so awfully exposed as in this article from The New York Post. It describes a glittering party held by Obama’s wealthy supporters, along with all the usual unaware excess that has come to be expected from that crowd. But this one is far worse than usual because of when it happened – Halloween – and where:

    It was Bette Midler’s 2012 New York Restoration Project Hulaween Benefit Gala — dubbed, ironically, “A Season in Hell’’ — at the posh Waldorf.

    The shindig, with tables going from $10,000 to $65,000, and co-chaired by Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, was barely 10 blocks from 40th Street.

    The masquerade ball, according to the NYRP’s Web site — “with a Hawaiian twist in honor of Bette’s home state” — was to be attended by a “star-studded crowd of nearly 1,000 costumed guests,’’ a performance by Blondie, and a dinner by celebrity chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten. “A French menu, can-can dancers, and French-themed decor and costumes,’’ pre-party literature promised.

    The writer points out that below 40th street marked a line:

    Below that line, thousands of New Yorkers lived without electricity, running water or hope, food spoiling in idle ice boxes.

    It was some 26 blocks from the spot on East 24th Street where elderly and disabled Didi D’Errico, 65, a retired actress, lives as a Prisoner of Second Avenue — unable to navigate the pitch-black staircases seven floors above darkened and deserted streets.

    Until I brought a turkey-and-swiss sandwich to her songwriter husband, Carl, 70, they hadn’t eaten a meal, save for rotting bananas, in days.

    Nice – and it gets worse:

    Midler was dressed as the ghost of Coco Chanel, entertaining designer Michael Kors and his husband, Lance LePere

    Messing chose to don the costume of Marie Antoinette,

    And there’s a photo of Messing to prove it. This level of disconnect is almost beyond comprehension, it’s other-worldly, and fully deserving of the abuse the columnist piles on:

    Celebrity twit Debra Messing and various heartless other stars proved beyond doubt that some fabulous New Yorkers don’t have hearts beating in their cold, dead chests.

    Messing, 44, of TV’s “Smash’’ and “Will and Grace’’ fame, proved on Halloween night that if you have enough money and face recognition, humility and breeding are useless distractions.

    And I’ll bet that almost every single one of those people will vote for Obama – because they care.

    It should come as no surprise though. As the historian Victor Hanson wrote the other day:

    Liberals believe that abstract caring allows them seclusion and cocooning in the real, material world. Private schools, tony upscale suburbs, nice Volvos and Lexus SUVs, jet travel to Tuscany, a fine Napa $100 wine, Harvard or Stanford for junior — all that reeks of privilege and exclusivity, and can prompt remorse. In some sense, Costa del Sol and Martha’s Vineyard, like John Kerry’s yacht or John Edwards’ home, are antithetical to the entire liberal value system.

    But if one is loudly for “pay-your-fair-share” higher taxes, or for affirmative action, or for more deficit spending, then one feels absolved from guilt over his isolated privilege — and can enjoy it without lamentation. And if one makes enough money not to worry about a few more taxes or fees, then a mind at peace is a pretty good deal.

    Lots of those who now reside in Portola Valley and the Berkeley hills helped to promote policies whose deleterious results fell on distant others, out of mind, out of sight, far away in Porterville and Stockton. Liberalism is an elite person’s psychological investment in enjoying a guilt-free affluence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The odds and history are against Obama getting the arse. Theres only been three one termers since 1960.

    Kennedy dead
    Bush snr. – “read my lips , no new taxes” – dead
    Carter – terminal stupidity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The left once gave representation to the concerns of the majority, your average working man. That has changed.

    The modern left are more concerned about minority rights and they now displace the concerns of the vast majority in favour of selected “victim” groups. What was once the voice of the worker, now regards the worker as an ignorant redneck.

    As for Obama, of course he will win, simply because the media want him to. Americans will do as they are told.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Tom

    The New York Post compares favourably with The Truth and The Sun so none of those at the party will read about how their attendance could be considered ironic .

    And seriously, because the power is out in Mt Albert do you stop going to dinner on the ‘shore.

    Check out http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/11/_the_devastatio.php

    even as liberal as the Voice is they are not pissing totally in Obama’ pocket, one party does not a race make. ‘fraid Obama will do another 4 years, Romney is not the answer anyway

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (5,875 comments) says:

    Here’s some musical talent. Love the way she handles her axe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Some balance on Tom’s cut and paste:

    http://www.nyrp.org/Parks_and_Gardens/Hurricane_Sandy_Impact

    The New York Restoration Project’s fundraising efforts for victims of Sandy.

    One could equally admire the organisation for proceeding in the midst of mayhem, especially when one realises that right now, the funds raised are being put to work to repair damage caused by Sandy. One could make a different case too, and we all witnessed the dilemma over the marathon.

    Overall, I these neoliberals – who advocate policies that will only ensure more, and worse, Sandy’s as they furiously burn all the fossil fuels built up over millions of years – not only draw a long bow (the US is a very rich country, after all) but they ignore their own complicity in so many modern tragedies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    “left-wing parties around the world have failed to make any real progress during tough economic times, the very periods when they should be doing well”

    I don’t know, the national party has done ok.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    I wonder if you’re too myopic to see it Luc, but while people’s bodies were being recovered and much of NY was without power, it was your Marie Antoinette type ‘heroes’ that were furiously burning the fossil fuels.
    But then you’d have nothing to say if you stopped being a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. iMP (2,232 comments) says:

    Tom…did Bette Midler sing “I was always in your shad-ow”? Good reprise for Obama to Romney for Tuesday (US) mebbe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    Nope, raised $1.8 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Michael Barone is a prominent, long-time analyst of US politics and he’s decided to go out on a limb and call the election for Romney.

    You can read the whole thing yourselves, and while some of it is the same as the link Fletch linked to, Barone has a lot of credibility, plus a touch of humility in making the call:

    Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I’ll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages — fully aware that I’m likely to get some wrong.

    The analysis gets pretty detailed on a state-by-state basis, but it boils down to the following:
    - Romney has huge leads in the Independent votes and has had this for some time. In 2008 Obama had these folks.

    - The GOP base is now in “broken-glass” mode, meaning they would crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama. This means GOP turnout levels more like 2010 than 2008.

    In order to counteract these factors Obama would have to have a huge turnout in his base – greater than 2008. Most polls have reflected such a desired turnout, with their samples running anywhere from D+3 to D+9 and higher. But:

    - The Democrat base by contrast has little enthusiasm for Obama even as it votes for him – which almost certainly means a lower turnout than in 2008, let alone the higher turnout he needs.

    And these three basic factors appear to be applying not just across the nation but in many of the key swing states. It almost certainly means that Romney wins the popular vote, so the question is whether this is the 2000 election. But that election had Gore winning it by less than 1%, while it’s hard to see Romney winning it by 3% or more and then losing the electoral vote.

    After that the right-wing can get used to the idea of President Squish reneging on his promises – probably more so than Obama did for the Left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. iMP (2,232 comments) says:

    Michael Barone’s political credentials are listed here, in this short post.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/washington-examiner-calls-us-election/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    From the NZ Herald titled “Study: NZ has best education system”:

    “New Zealand has the best education system in the world, according to a new study.

    The annual Legatum Prosperity Index has ranked New Zealand as the fifth most prosperous country in the world overall, and first in the education category.

    It was ranked second for its governance; second for personal freedom; fourth for social capital; 13th for entrepreneurship and opportunity, 13th for safety and security; 20th for health; and 27th for economy.

    Norway topped the rankings, followed by Denmark and Sweden

    Australia just out-ranked New Zealand in fourth position.

    The United States dropped out of the top 10 for the first time to 12th position.”

    Nevertheless, I’m sure the teaching bashing will continue, just like Hekia keeps using the 20% failing figure despite it being discredited.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    RN

    Very few people can stop burning fossil fuels. I don’t expect that to happen. What I do expect to happen is a gradual move away from fossil fuels to renewables but your type are doing their best to obstruct that.

    The NYRP will be judged by it’s own community. All I’m saying is that there are arguments for both sides and the people somehow conflating that event with all ‘liberals’ and the ‘left’ are both extreme and risible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Thanks for that bc, it shows Key is doing a great job with his education reforms and also in many other areas. I am sure you will agree.

    Not such good news for Obama though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    Lazybum (251) Says:
    November 4th, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    At least USA is a demoracracy, unlike NZ according to my sons relief teacher.

    The U.S. of A. is a Republic, if they can keep it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    “…but your type are …”
    “…people somehow conflating that event with all ‘liberals’ and the ‘left’ are both extreme and risible.”

    I get it, it’s only ok when you do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    And in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it looks like John Key might have mixed his metaphors with his ‘batshit’ expression …

    From the NZ Herald:
    Max Cryer, author of popular Kiwi linguistic books, said he thought the PM had got his words mixed up and a more common expression was “boring as bat shit”.

    “He may have meant to reference pig shit, which is a far more widely used term,” Cryer said.

    “He perhaps should check what he is saying before getting it wrong and accusing other people of being thick.

    “David Beckham has made hundreds of millions of dollars from his off-field business activities and you would think John Key would be aware of that.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    Not to mention that batshit isn’t that thick after all !!

    Brian Lloyd, bat survey officer for Forest and Bird, said Key’s remarks were “an insult to bats and to Beckham”.

    “Bats are pretty intelligent. Their droppings are rich in nitrogen and produce their own ecosystem. And they are anything but thick.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    What bollocks bc, you can dismiss this on many grounds, for example third world immigrants children having better maths ability than our students for the same age, etc etc etc.

    But you can also dismiss this as the turd of some left wing sycophantic organisation by which countries came 1,2, and 3. Scandinavia, the last resort of the desperate lefty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sonny Blount (1,845 comments) says:

    What is amusing is that Kiwi libtards have bet on Obama so much that it currenlty cost 22c a share to bet on Romney on iPredict, which will pay out at $1 on Wednesday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    And while our Tourism Minister is generating front page headlines in the UK in not quite the way we wanted, Beckham gets his own back:

    During the visit, Beckham spent 45 minutes with Key’s son Max.

    But a source close to Beckham claimed he barely remembers meeting Key.

    “David isn’t sure he spent much time with him at all,” the source said. “He remembers the previous leader Helen Clark a lot better.”

    Burn!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ryan Sproull (7,027 comments) says:

    What is amusing is that Kiwi libtards have bet on Obama so much that it currenlty cost 22c a share to bet on Romney on iPredict, which will pay out at $1 on Wednesday.

    Hmm. I’d take that bet. Would be nice for something good to come out of a Romney victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Re polling:

    Nate Silver currently gives Romney less than 20% chance of winning, albeit he adds a caveat that outsiders do come in from time to time. So Romney is still in with a runner’s chance.

    Rasmussen, after having Romney in a respectable lead for some time has come back to the pack and has the two candidates even. This implies a late swing towards Obama and also implies Obama is actually in the lead when the obvious polling bias is taken into account.

    Gallup puts Americans expectation of an Obama win at 54% as compared to 34% who think Romney will win.

    Intrade has Obama at 66.6% probability of winning.

    ipredict has Obama at 78% probability of winning.

    The last two are genuine free market indicators, which many experts tell us is the best price fixing mechanism.

    So, generally, I’m afraid, the posts of Tom and other extremists can be characterized as: straws…clutching.

    None of which means Romney can’t win (and it could be even more difficult to pick if Israel launches its November surprise!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    What reforms, Kea? Anne Tolley did bugger all and Hekia is an embarassment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Nope, raised $1.8 million.

    That’s about $1,800 per attendee, based on the attendee estimates which are so basic and known that they’re unlikely to have been skewed by partisanship.

    Given the wealth present they’d have done vastly more if they’d just donated directly or – here’s a thought – stood in line serving in the food kitchens.

    The New York Post compares favourably with The Truth and The Sun so none of those at the party will read about how their attendance could be considered ironic .

    They read? Seriously, they could read The Oxford History of the French Revolution and they still would not get it – and that assumes they’d first read the dictionary to understand what ironic means.

    I have little time for tabloid papers “like” The Sun or The NY Post – but I also consider the modern day NY Times to be little better in light of events like the Jason Blair scandal, so I think that snobbery should be dropped nowadays. When you’ve been beaten out by the likes of The National Enquirer in actual reporting of stories, such as those around the incredibly scummy former Democrat VP candidate John Edwards, I don’t think they’re in a position to be snooty. In any case, given that they’re dying while the likes of “low-brow” websites like Drudge flourish, it’s probably a moot fight anyway.

    And seriously, because the power is out in Mt Albert do you stop going to dinner on the ‘shore.

    A Mt Albert power outage is comparable to what has happened to NYC, and going out to dinner on the ‘shore is comparable to a $US 10,000 plus per table.

    I liked the use of the word “seriously” though. A touch of humor while making a serious point.

    even as liberal as the Voice is they are not pissing totally in Obama’ pocket …

    Of course, but the Far Left have never been that keen on him. That’s hardly the same as the “centre-left” tilt of the MSM.

    ‘fraid Obama will do another 4 years, Romney is not the answer anyway

    Well, we’ll see. It’s possible Obama will hang on by the skin of his teeth in terms of swing states like Ohio and the Electoral College, but I think the tide has been against him since that first debate and the momentum is all GOP.

    And while Romney is not the answer for me either I’d still go with Mark Steyn’s comment:

    I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    bc – I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano#Sourcing

    bat guano can actually collect in very ‘thick’ deposits.

    You’re not as smart as Key – nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    Fletch is preparing an out clause for himself just in case Obama wins the election – he will tell himself that the election was ‘stolen’ because Obama cheated.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    Pathetic!

    Hmmm, come of think of it, when it comes to stolen US elections, who does that remind me of …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    Yes RightNow I am happy to concede that I know very little about batshit, and that John Key may know more about it than me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    The odds and history are against Obama getting the arse. Theres only been three one termers since 1960.

    Pauleastbay, as far as history, it looks as though Republicans have won a majority of the time if the election date falls on November the 6th.

    Here’s one more historical curiosity to observe this election cycle. Since election day was standardized in 1845 there have been 6 presidential elections held on November 6th and Republicans have won all six. That means next Tuesday, the 7th Presidential election held on this date, will either break or uphold a streak that began in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln.

    1860 – Abraham Lincoln over Stephen Douglas
    1888 – Benjamin Harrison over incumbent Grover Cleveland
    1900 – William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
    1928 – Herbert Hoover over Al Smith
    1956 – Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson
    1984 – Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale

    Not that I give any credence to the idea that the date makes any difference (at least, not logically), but it is interesting :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    So how many Pundits got it right the last time in 2008? How many gave Obama a major win over McCain? What stat companies are being cited and what is their track records? What Pundits are non biased?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    You seem a bit confused and muddled bc.

    You started off with a survey indicating NZ is doing very well under Key, then proceed to try and tell us how much he sucks.

    The reader is faced with two choices; The results of an international survey, or your opinion. I know which I prefer. It also raises a question about what informs your views, given that those views are not supported by facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Tauhei Notts (1,604 comments) says:

    Useless information Fletch
    Notice how every 28 years since 1900 the republicans win?
    Weird, eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. backster (2,076 comments) says:

    Tom………..How could it be a party with no Lindsay Lohan, Brittany, or Madonna there. I guess Paris had an excuse if it wasn’t one of Grand dad’s venues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    I’m afraid, the posts of Tom and other extremists can be characterized as: straws…clutching.

    One of Luc’s most obvious characteristics is his psychological one of projecting his own traits onto his opponents. So we constantly see his use of terms such as “Big Lie”, “cherry-picker”, “sophist”, “bigot”, “extremist”, and of course his all-time favourite – “racist”.

    I was reminded once again of this WSJ article from early last month, describing the Obama campaign’s descent into flat-out calling Romney a liar, and pointing out how rare this is:

    Explicitly calling someone a “liar” is—or used to be—a serious and rare charge, in or out of politics. It’s a loaded word. It crosses a line. “Liar” suggests bad faith and conscious duplicity—a total, cynical falsity.

    Politics isn’t beanbag, but politicians past had all sorts of devices to say or suggest an opponent was playing fast and loose with the truth. This week’s Obama TV ad, “How Can We Trust Mitt Romney?” would have been perfectly legit absent the Plouffe “liar” prepping.

    But it was the comments on the history and pedigree of the official campaign use of the word “liar” that should be noted:

    The Obama campaign’s resurrection of “liar” as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it.

    The purpose of calling someone a liar then was not merely to refute their ideas or arguments. It was to nullify them, to eliminate them from participation in politics.

    That’s Luc Hansen and his ilk in a nutshell. But I’m glad he thinks it lends him credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    You are the confused one, Kea

    I don’t think that Key “sucks” (to use your word).

    Rather, I think his comment about Beckham was incredibly stupid – in fact you could say it was ‘batshit crazy’ – which is course is the expression that Key got wrong.

    Now, Kea I’m still waiting for all these educational reforms from Key that you mentioned before …

    Because, Kea – here’s the thing. There are no educational reforms of any significance that have happened since National took power. And probably not that many great educational reforms before that with Labour.
    This may come as a shock to you Kea, but it is the teachers not the government that results in us having a great educational system.
    Yep despite the teacher bashing, despite governments (both National and Labour) posturing and tinkering around the edges, it is the teachers that do the best for our children. They ignore the petty insults and grandstanding from politicians (and kiwibloggers!!) and work hard to have a world leading education system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I can only call it as I see it, Tom.

    If the hat fits…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    Doing their bit for the Kenyan: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_location

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yes the teachers do work,hard in the education system, I know I’m married to one. But they are fighting an uphill battle against pathetic government policy, watering down of exams, drugs, alcohol, poor parenting and other products of the welfare addiction and entitlement. Consequently there is no way our education system produces educational quality on the same level as,many other countries. The report is bs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. publicwatchdog (2,096 comments) says:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/video-whaleoil-goes-mainstream-ck-131794#

    MY COMMENT – YET TO BE PUBLISHED:

    If Cameron Slater is ‘no holds barred’ in holding politicians ‘feet to the fire’ – what has he done to hold John Bank’s (and Don Brash’s) ‘feet to the fire’ over the ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ (that they both support) – not yet applying to them over Huljich?

    (John Banks and Don Brash were both former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, and both signed Huljich Kiwisaver Registered Prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements – a ‘strict liability’ offence under s.58(3) of the Securities Act.)

    I formally requested the Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), and the NZ Police apply ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ to the former and current ACT Party Leaders.

    When each of the above-mentioned put it in writing that they would do nothing, I petitioned Parliament for an urgent investigation. However – the national party dominated Commerce Select Committee also chose to do nothing.

    At least I tried!

    What has Cameron Slater done on this issue?)

    Why has Cameron Slater banned me for commenting on his ‘Whaleoil’ blog – is he purports to support ‘freedom of expression’?

    If staff at the ‘TRUTH’ are covered by employment law – how long is Cameron Slater going to last, as ‘TRUTH’ Editor?

    (Kind regards Cameron – I’d be making this comment to you directly – on YOUR blog – if you hadn’t ‘banned’ me? :)

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. dog_eat_dog (743 comments) says:

    I’m guessing he’s banned you because you’re as mad as two bits of coal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    One of Luc’s most obvious characteristics is his psychological one of projecting his own traits onto his opponents. So we constantly see his use of terms such as “Big Lie”, “cherry-picker”, “sophist”, “bigot”, “extremist”, and of course his all-time favourite – “racist”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (555 comments) says:

    I wish David would ban you Penny. It seems whale has done the honorable thing in getting rid of a fruit cake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Nate Silver currently gives Romney less than 20% chance of winning, albeit he adds a caveat that outsiders do come in from time to time. So Romney is still in with a runner’s chance.

    The ghost of Nate Silver’s past never vanishes – even when he subsequently gets things wrong. Silver got things very right in 2008, so much so that other pollsters and pundits have suspected that he was being fed poll data from inside the Obama campaign, where such things are sliced and diced to a far greater degree than the public ones, more money is spent, and no spin is involved.

    Unfortunately for Nate, as for all pollsters sooner or later, the random walk of predictive powers returns, as it did in 2010. Over on the PJMedia site, Stephen Green – blogging under the delightful title of “Vodkapundit” – highlights the problems with Silver’s seemingly scientific approach, quoting another journalist, Jay Cost:

    But they misinterpret 2008: the Democratic share of the vote that year was right within its historical track of the high-30s. What differed was a drop in Republican identification from the mid-30s to the low-30s.

    Does anybody really expect that to persist this year? Of course not.

    This means we will probably be back to a slender divide between the two parties, narrowed even more by greater Republican loyalty.

    Again, this is a different approach than the poll mavens will offer. They are taking data at face value, running simulations off it, and generating probability estimates. That is not what this is, and it should not be interpreted as such. I am not willing to take polls at face value anymore. I am more interested in connecting the polls to history and the long-run structure of American politics, and when I do that I see a Romney victory.

    Green goes on to point out what this meant in 2010:

    This jibes nicely with the technique I used during the Tea Party wave of 2010 to beat Silver black and blue. He plugged his numbers into his spreadsheet and came up with a 25% chance of the GOP taking 60 seats away from the Democrats. My final call was a bit firmer: 64 seats, no hedging with probable outcomes or any of that BS.

    The real result was 67 seats. I missed three out of the 113 I figured might be up for grabs.

    A 25% chance eh? Sounds awfully familar. And Green makes the additional point about the Silver’s of this world:

    So how did a blogger in his pajamas absolutely smear a statistician armed with the best tools and data the New York Times could provide?

    Well, as I said, I have a technique. It’s called “judgment.” That’s exactly what Cost is writing about above. Judgment is inherently humble, because it comes from hard experiences of being wrong. And it isn’t hobbled by the vile progressive insistence that what they do is science because they’re just so damn forward thinking and progressive and scientific and so it must be so.

    Nate seemed like he had it spades in 2008 — when real life just happened to trend the same way as the presumptions he plugged into Excel and called “a scientific model.” In 2010, he looked a little foolish when he tried to repeat the stunt. We’ll see what he ends up looking like this year, but I trust Cost’s judgment a lot more than I’ve come to trust Silver’s “science.”

    Soon enough, we’ll know for sure.

    But maybe Nate is different this year? Maybe he’s using iWorks Numbers instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Why has Cameron Slater banned me for commenting on his ‘Whaleoil’ blog – is he purports to support ‘freedom of expression’?

    Penny, I don’t know, but I will attempt a guess.

    You do not participate in discussion. You make various claims in your long rambling disjointed posts, but refuse to answer questions or support your claims.

    You are a bore and my least favourite contributor on KB. Not because your a crazy social misfit, but because you are boring. You can fix that by replying to the reasonable questions asked of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Paul Krugman has a nice line on those who desperately try to discredit Nate Silver

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/the-war-on-objectivity/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    And the Guardian gives context to Fletch’s complaint about vote rigging:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/03/election-florida-early-voting-scrutiny

    Florida voters have faced long lines all week to vote early, with some people queuing for five hours, in part because the ballot runs to several pages, with proposed constitutional amendments as well as electing a president, members of Congress and local officials, and it takes a while to fill it out even if people are fully prepared.

    But Democrats say another reason for the extended lines is that the Republican legislature cut the number of early voting days from 14 to eight to discourage Democrats, who are more likely to vote early, from going to the polling stations. One particularly blatant move was to scrap voting on the last Sunday before election day when many African Americans in Florida traditionally go to the polls after church.

    But there have been other measures to discourage early voting, or voting at all, some of which have been struck down by the federal courts as blatant discrimination.

    The League of Women Voters says that the man behind this is the same Republican party official who effectively rigged the 2000 vote in Florida which delivered George Bush into power by a few hundred voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Neil (555 comments) says:

    Great fun reading the comments. Lay my cards on table quite openly and hope that Romney wins over the amateur, Obama.
    Hadf a laugh this morning whenQ&A announced they were going to talk to Chris Matthews, Obama’s great protector in that station MSNBC- a very biased pro-Democrat station. Has shocking ratings compared with Fox.Matthews is viciously against Romney,
    Just watched CNN which had poll numbers of 259 Romney and aboiut 250 leaving the rest to close to call- including Ohio. If CNN see it that way the odds are with Romney. CNN is not a friend of the Republicans.Last minute votes tend to favour the non-incumbent.
    Forget about Nate Silver,538,Dick Morris etc. They are biased so sit back for a great day Wednesday pm in NZ watching the election on Fox News for less bias than CNN

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Hey Fletch

    The defence against a charge of defamation is that the statement is true. I have no problems proving any charges I may make. The trick is to look at the context and then explain why said statement is unjustified.

    Look at something presented by Tom yesterday that implicitly presented an argument that hurricanes were declining with an increase in CO2 emissions, but the argument relied on carefully selected data of only those hurricanes that made landfall in the United States and ignored those that hit other countries instead and ignored those that ran out of puff before making landfall, which is most of them.

    I call this cherry picking purely as a statement of fact.

    What do you call it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    rigged the 2000 vote in Florida which delivered George Bush into power

    Bush got into power because he was popular. At one stage he was one of the most popular Presidents in US history. Please do not accept my word on it, look it up.

    The media told us he was the most un-popular President in US history, which was a lie. He was only un-popular with the left wing media, who misrepresented the truth and launched a massive smear campain, the likes of which has not been seen before. When he was voted in, they made up another story about rigged elections.

    Bush retired champion. Obama did not defeat Bush.

    You are really picking the wrong forum to talk such shit Luc. Unlike the msm people can talk back and challenge you on KB.They also might know a bit more than you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    There’s no better way to discredit somebody than to show that their past predictions were wrong and why – and you can’t get much more wrong than predicting in 2010 that the GOP had only a 25% chance of taking 60 seats in the House.

    And it’s so typical of Krugman (and Luc naturally enough), that he casts his opponents as screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books ….

    So let’s have a look at this screaming bias:

    But look at some of the weights applied to the individual polls in Silver’s model. The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49–48. That poll is given a weighting under Silver’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.

    The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since. The poll from twelve days ago also, coincidentally enough, is Obama’s best recent poll in Ohio, because of a Democratic party-identification advantage of eleven points. By contrast, the Rasmussen poll from eight days later, which has a larger sample size, more recent field dates, but has an even party-identification split between Democrats and Republicans, has a weighting of .88826, lower than any other poll taken in the last nine days.

    That’s a perfectly calm, reasonable critique of Silver’s methods of weighting opinion polls to produce his probability estimates.

    But in Krugman/Hansen world such analysis has to be converted into screaming bias, because that sort of emotionally laden language is part and parcel of the effort to categorise opponents as non-rational actors. Which once again leads us back to the question of whether such people are just projecting themselves and their argumentative approaches onto their opponents.

    Still I can see why Krugman would have difficulties with the concept that theories and models must be modified or discarded when the results don’t pan out; he’d be cast adrift in such a world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    Kea & bc #

    [kea] “…on education bc…It also raises a question about what informs your views, given that those views are not supported by facts….”

    Here is a fact and a view on education -

    “The state schools deprived working-class parents of the power to withdraw their children from the worst. The private school parents know that their power to move is the source of their influence on their schools. The power of low-income people to withdraw their children from poor schools, in practice or by intention, was taken from them by the state.” — Arthur Seldon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Never thought of it that way before Harriet. Seems to make sense.

    I wonder what bc thinks :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter#

    “….If taxes made the world get cooler the place would be an ice-box….” — Barnaby Joyce, accountant and current Australian MP.

    He’s probably right y’know Tom. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Rightandleft (629 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    That’s the way it works in the US, your address entitles you to send your kids to only one school, the one the state dictates. If it’s failing, too bad for you. But in NZ since 1989 that isn’t how it works at all. You don’t like the failing school your kid is in, take some initiative and look into other local schools. If they all suck start trying some more distant ones. If the parents have any real concern for their kids they’ll get them into a good school. If NZ was like the US we wouldn’t have kids from downtown Auckland, West Auckland and Waiheke attending North Shore schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Harriet (4,502 comments) says:

    Rightandleft#

    The point is that all public schools in NZ operate at about the same level due to education department rules, and the status quo position of the Teachers Union.

    If they really were that differant from each other, then we wouldn’t have a 1-10 decile standard. Instead a great, fair, and poor standard would suffice.

    Deciles are simply a smokescreen made up of lots of ‘indicators’ of which most are meaningless and used primarily for more public funding, and the ‘acknowledgement’ from government mp’s and servants that ‘matters pertaining to indicators are being addressed’. Matters pertaining to why kids REALLY arn’t learning to levels of the PAST[at their MOST local school as you say] arn’t addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Now it looks like absentee ballots being sent to Afghanistan for military personnel to vote may have been destroyed in a plane crash – how convenient…

    (AP) Absentee ballots may have been destroyed in crash
    TALLAHASSEE, Fla.
    Federal officials say that absentee ballots being sent to U.S. military serving in Afghanistan may have been burned in a plane crash.

    A top official in the Federal Voting Assistance Program this week notified election officials across the nation that a transport plane crashed at Shindad Air Base on Oct. 19.

    The crash resulted in the destruction of 4,700 pounds of mail inbound to troops serving in the area.

    Federal officials in their email to state election offices said they did not know if any ballots were destroyed. They also said the lost mail was limited to one zip code.

    But they recommended that election officials resend a new ballot to anyone who requested one since the first ballot may have been destroyed in the crash and fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    Kea @ 3.42pm “Bush got into power because he was popular … Please do not accept my word on it, look it up”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    Ok, now that I’ve stop laughing, let me recall – wasn’t the results of the 2000 election when Bush got into power very marginal and controversal.
    But hey, Kea says look it up, so look it up I will.

    Hmmm, let’s see Al Gore got 48.4% of the votes and Geoge Bush got ……..

    …. 47.9% !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A vistory for a popular president indeed. Never mind “Planet Key”, I think we have a “Planet Kea” situation here!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    I see that you are really working hard on that list of excuses today just in case Obama wins, Fletch!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    bc, you may want to get a grown up to help with that google search. Here is what I found at the top of the list. You will note Bush was more popular than Obama and that hardly fits with what the msm would have us believe.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

    I qualified my statement by saying “at one stage” [he was the most popular]. To save you the effort of a 2 second google search:

    ” having received the highest recorded presidential approval ratings”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Kea

    So much deflection, so little time.

    And poor ol’ Tom: I’m not even sure what his dog is in this fight but he’s like a dog with a juicy bone when using a fine toothcomb all over the net to find anything, just anything! that will skew the way things are to be way he wants them to be.

    Tom, why are you fixating on Silver, who readily says that a 25% chance still means that bet has a good chance of winning. He’s doesn’t say that Obama is polling at over 80%, for example, just that Obama has 80:20 probability of winning – wow, i just checked again, Romney has been in free fall!

    Maybe you need to brush up on probability theory and what it means because it’s an entirely different concept to straight polling numbers.

    But in that 2010 election you quote, what popularity rating did he have the parties and how close was that? That is more pertinent given your comprehension deficit on the matter of Silver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    @Kea

    So much deflection, so little time.

    They are called facts, not deflection Luc.

    This is one of least lovely aspects of the left, the lies, the terrible terrible lies.

    I might add the sources I referenced are clearly bias AGAINST Bush in the presentation. But even so, they had to acknowledge his popularity, at one stage.

    What have you got to back up your opinion, other than even more opinion ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Got a little time for some digging of my own. Here’a gem of a post from Silver in 2008:

    Right now, Barack Obama has 63.7 million popular votes to John McCain’s 56.3 million, whereas third party candidates have roughly a collective 1.6 million. That works out to 52.4 percent of the vote for Obama and 46.3 percent for McCain … conspicuously close to our pre-election estimates of 52.3 percent for Obama and 46.2 percent for McCain.

    Link:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/popular-vote.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kea you took a discussion on an election outcome miles off track by pointing to Bush’s popularity at a different stage of his presidency to election time. It’s a crap way of arguing.

    You can dispute what is said in the article, but the widespread perception is exactly as the Guardian report had it. Gore won the election and the Republicans steamrollered over him with the crooked Supreme Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Hey Fletch

    Did Obama organise that plan crash from his control centre in Area 51?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    It was a reply to a statement made in the article. Maybe it was “off track” but that does not detract from the validity of what I said.

    It may annoy you, but Bush never lost a Presidential election. Ever.

    This bothers the left so much that they have made up some elaborate conspiracy theory to explain it all away. They are no better than religious nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    Tom, why are you fixating on Silver, who readily says that a 25% chance still means that bet has a good chance of winning.

    You’re the one who raised Silver in the first place – and when I showed him as having grossly failed in predicting the 2010 result, you came back with a Krudman defense, which was really nothing more than an attack, his usual one of accusing the other side of screaming bias – which also got shot down.

    So now it’s deflect, deflect, deflect, plus some of the usual reading comprehension problems again – and projecting that on to me as well.

    The point is that the guy you used as the sage who says Romney has a 25% shot at winning this time, is the same guy, using the same models, who said the GOP had a 25% chance of winning 60 seats in 2010.

    And by the way – a 25% chance is not a “good” chance of winning, it’s a very low probability – which tells us all we need to know about your understanding of probability theory, just in case you feel the need to try to explain it again.

    Could you be any more pathetic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Early NZ History.
    Something a few need to brush up on.
    1831 Maori petition to King for protection
    TO KING WILLIAM, THE GRACIOUS CHIEF OF ENGLAND
    This is T.L. Buick’s account of the petition from 13 Ngapuhi chiefs that the King

    http://johnansell.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/1831-letter-from-chiefs-to-king.png

    http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/1831-maori-petition-to-king-for-protection/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It doesn’t annoy me at all Kea. Bush was a global village idiot but he’s America’s problem, not mine. But thanks for admitting your deflection, or, if you prefer, red herring play. But:

    It’s not a conspiracy theory that Florida and other Republican-controlled states attack voting eligibility requirements that impact on Democrat leaning populations.

    It’s not a conspiracy theory that Jeb Bush disenfranchised ex-prisoners – in a country that imprisons people almost at whim, especially minorities.

    It’s not a conspiracy theory that state officials interpreted voting rules in an especially narrow manner so as to rule out large numbers of Gore votes in Democrat voting precincts.

    It’s not a conspiracy theory that saw recounts after the election, by reputable academics, give Florida to Gore.

    Those are just facts.

    A conspiracy theory would say it was all a carefully planned enterprise controlled at the highest levels in the Republican party.

    I don’t say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The point is that the guy you used as the sage who says Romney has a 25% shot at winning this time, is the same guy, using the same models, who said the GOP had a 25% chance of winning 60 seats in 2010.

    Can you provide the original source link (ie 538) for that? I can’t find it on his site, yet.

    I don’t agree that 25% is particularly low in betting terms. But then, I would, wouldn’t I?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    It’s not a conspiracy theory that Democrat campaign officials decry voters being reminded that voting fraud is a federal crime…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Scott Chris (5,875 comments) says:

    and you can’t get much more wrong than predicting in 2010 that the GOP had only a 25% chance of taking 60 seats in the House.

    How do you know that those odds were wrong? Or to phrase it another way, what are the statistical chances that his prediction was right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Rightandleft (629 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    First of all the Department of Education hasn’t existed since the 1980s. Secondly decile ratings are a straight rating of the percentage of low socio-economic status children attend the school and have nothing to do with the school’s performance, test results, reaching of some ‘indicators’ at all. The fact that we constantly debate the ‘long-tail’ is proof that not all our schools are performing at a similar level. The right-wing answer to this issue is to give some schools more freedom by removing much state control and letting the private sector run the school without much oversight while allowing them to hire teachers without any formal teacher training. At the same time it is to apply much more oversight on traditional public schools and require more formal teacher training for their teachers. The left-wing argument is that the schools performing poorly do so because of the social and economic factors in the students’ home lives and the poor support they get from poorly educated or absent parents. They argue the best way to deal with this is smaller class sizes for struggling students to allow for more support and individualisation at school. They also want to see better funding for alternative and special education.

    To say the teachers unions are for the status quo is just wrong. Right now the PPTA are arguing for better teacher appraisal systems and they have accepted the new Teach First NZ training model the govt wants to trial. PPTA members work in schools trialling cutting edge teaching methods like Albany Senior High. There are inovations being made in education all the time.

    Also to say that students today are performing at a lower level than in the past is a vast oversimplification. Today we require much higher standards of students compared to a generation ago. NCEA Level 2 is now the minimum we expect of students before leaving school. The new curriculum is world-leading and it focuses on learning skills rather than rote memorisation of material. We are creating the skilled thinkers the 21st Century economy needs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Officials won’t apologise even though Jesus wasn’t on the ballot.

    http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/02/texas-woman-forced-to-cover-up-vote-the-bible-shirt-in-order-to-cast-ballot/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Good idea of the extent of damage to NY subway

    http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/weather/2012/11/02/ac-carroll-sandy-inside-the-nyc-subways.cnn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I found this in 538 archives:

    It is, of course, an impossible task to argue that the Republicans have no chance of winning the House, something which betting markets — and yours truly — in fact consider to be somewhat more likely than not.

    07/09/2010

    So they needed 39 seats to take the House, and Nate picked that as being more likely than not. In July. I see Tom is talking about the chances of the GOP winning 60 seats, and that election sure was an outlier and unexpectedly successful for the Republicans, so I still don’t see what the fixation with 2010 is all about.

    A 25% chance in 538 jargon is that if an election was held 100 times, one party would win 75 and the other would win 25. That particular election, if Tom’s source is true, which I have yet to be able to verify, was one of the 25.

    Tom appears to be the one struggling with the maths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    Here’s a few reasons why NOT to vote for Obama.
    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/11/02/why-was-there-no-october-surprise/

    I note young Jack Tame has been on TVNZ and in his pieced he interviewed a couple of blacks and a union leader in Detroit. He did not have one Romney supporter. Master Tame is totally unprofessional.

    Anyway, enjoy this…

    The Complete List of Barack Obama’s Scandals, Misdeeds, Crimes and Blunders

    • $6 trillion in new national debt under Obama…after he promised to decrease the deficit.

    • Obamacare — A massive and incredibly convoluted bill which exponentially increases the federal government’s control over our personal lives…which neither Obama nor a single Democrat even read before passing, and which will likely bankrupt the nation.

    • In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Obama campaign purposely disabled the credit card verification system for its Web site donations, allowing anyone from any foreign country to donate with no limit and no proof of identity; in both elections it was demonstrated that people overseas and people with obviously false identities were able to donate to Obama campaign, in direct violation of several laws. To this day it is not known what percentage of Obama’s campaign funds are illegally obtained, since there is no documentation.

    • Billions of taxpayer dollars gambled on “green” companies like Solyndra, NextEra, Ener1, Solar Trust and many others — all of which went bankrupt.

    • An intentional refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.

    • Unemployment at or above 8% for almost his entire term in office (which was actually closer to 15% actual unemployment).

    • Operation Fast & Furious — a government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry so as to induce public outcry for gun control.

    • Spent 20 years listening to a racist anti-American pastor (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), whom Obama desribed as a mentor. On March 18, 2008, Obama gave a speech in which he said “I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than I could disown my own grandmother” and “[Wright's church, Trinity United] embodies the black community in its entirety.” Now Obama tries to pretend that Jeremiah Wright doesn’t exist, and that his extremist anti-white philosophy didn’t influence Obama’s worldview.

    • Increased the percentage of Americans dependent on food stamps to unprecedented levels (now over 15% of the nation’s population).

    • Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense.

    • Before he entered politics, Obama worked as a lawyer suing banks in landmark cases, forcing them to give home loans to unqualified minority borrowers — a practice now understood as one of the primary initial causes of the eventual housing bubble and market collapse.

    • Handed out over 1,200 waivers to politically connected donors exempting them from the onerous requirements of Obamacare.

    • Greatly expanding the number of unaccountable “czars,” which essentially amounts to unilaterally adding new federal departments with no congressional oversight — leading to a true “bureaucracy” in the original sense (rule by unelected bureaucrats).

    • Using taxpayer dollars to bail out the private pension funds of autoworkers’ unions at GM & Chrysler.

    • Illegally ending the welfare-to-work requirements passed by Congress.

    • Doling out $800 billion in stimulus cash for “shovel-ready” jobs that didn’t exist — the money just evaporated with no measurable economic benefit.

    • Alienating and isolating Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.

    • Apologizing to Islamists and terrorists for offending them.

    • Under Obama’s watch, for the first time in history America’s credit rating was downgraded, due to his poor economic policies.

    • Stopped American oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, allowing other nations with worse environmental records to drill instead — thereby managing to both weaken our economy and damage the environment simultaneously.

    • Proposed in 2008 to intentionally bankrupt the coal industry — and now lies to voters and workers in coal-producing regions about his true intent.

    • Pretends to be concerned about skyrocketing energy prices, when in fact he vowed to increase them on purpose (so as to make alternative energy schemes more competitive.)

    • In a primary debate against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Obama said he would never force people to buy health insurance, since those without it couldn’t afford to buy it. Less than two years later, he rammed through Obamacare, which does indeed force people to buy health insurance.

    • During the 2008 campaign, Obama repeatedly promised that if he was elected “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” This promise was broken over and over again once he was elected.

    • In 2008 Obama vowed if elected to increase security along the U.S.-Mexican border — and then in 2010 stopped construction of a “virtual fence” on the border and re-routed money earmarked for border security to other projects.

    • Cash for Clunkers, which doled out taxpayer money to anyone who wanted to replace their old cars, but which mostly only ended up subsidizing the puchase of foreign-made cars by people who could have afforded them on their own anyway; meanwhile, the traded-in cars were all destroyed, creating a shortage and thereby increasing the cost of used cars, hurting the pocketbooks of poor people.

    • Violated the U.S. Constitution by authorizing assassinations and drone strikes to kill American citizens abroad — without due process.

    • Was caught on a “hot mike” promising the President of Russia that he would cave in to their demands for a weaker missile shield — after he was re-elected and no longer had to keep up the pretense that he sought to defend America.

    • Appointed Van Jones, a former avowed communist who supported a “9/11 Truth” petition, to be “Green Jobs Czar.”

    • Appointed Anita Dunn, who said Chairman Mao was her “favorite philosopher,” to be White House Communications Director.

    • Appointed John Holdren, who perviously entertained the notion of forced mass sterilzation to stop overpopulation, to be Science Czar.

    • Appointed Steven Chu, who openly advocated an artificial increase in gasoline prices to $10/gallon (and similar increases in other energy prices) to be Secretary of Energy.

    • Appointed Kevin Jennings, who led a group that promoted X-rated “sex-positive” textbooks for 13-year-olds, instructed teenagers at a conference how to perform “fisting” (anal penetration by fists), who refused to report instances of statutory rape, and who expressed admiration for a member of NAMBLA, to be America’s “Safe School’s Czar.”

    • When states voted to enforce the federal immigration laws which the federal government refused to enforced, Obama sued to stop them.

    • Blocked continued construction of the Keystone Pipeline, thereby intentionally reducing energy resources for the US and forcing Canada to sell more of its oil to China.

    • Repeatedly changed his position on gay marriage over the years, depending on what was politically expedient at the moment and which intended audience he was addressing.

    • Before he was president, Obama staunchly opposed raising the national debt limit — but once elected, he insisted that it be raised.

    • When giving a 2009 speech in France that he hoped and assumed Americans would never hear, he described the United States as “arrogant” and “dismissive.”

    • When states tried to stop election fraud with voter ID laws, Obama sued to prevent them from doing so.

    • Instructed Attorney General Eric Holder to stonewall any investigation into the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers.

    • Promised in 2008 that once elected he would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide; but to this date he has still failed to do so, caving in to threats and pressure from Turkey.

    • Vowed to end the influence of lobbyists in Washington, but under Obama’s watch their influence has only increased.

    • When he was first running for President, Obama promised, “I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Needless to say, he has broken that promise with almost every bill he has signed since.

    • Aided and abetted the “Arab Spring” which deposed existing secular governments across North Africa, leading to a regional power vacuum which was filled by Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other hardline Islamists.

    • Refused to provide assistance or support the the earlier secular Iranian democracy uprising, allowing them to be crushed by the Islamic fundamentalist Iranian regime.

    • In his first months in office, Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, the president of China, the Emperor of Japan, and President of Mexico, among others.

    • Ordered NASA to make one of its top priorities not space exploration or scientific research but “Muslim outreach.”

    • Used Obamacare as a pretext to greatly increase the size and power of the IRS (which was given 16,000 new agents and additional mandates to penalize taxpayers for noncompliance).

    • Used the IRS to harass conservative businesses.

    • In the GM bailout, he illegally shortchanged investors who according to bankruptcy laws were first in line to be recompensed; instead, he gave their share to the unions.

    • Shut down oil drilling in the US, but then turned around and lent $2 billion to Brazil to support their government-controlled oil-drilling effort — and then promised the US would become one of Brazil’s biggest oil customers.

    • Sued Boeing in an effort to control where businesses could locate, kowtow to the unions, and block the creation of 1,000 jobs in South Carolina, a right-to-work (i.e. no forced unionization) state.

    • Adopted a longstanding Socialist political slogan, “Forward!”, as his 2012 campaign motto.

    • Sent insulting form letters to the familes of dead SEALs.

    • Neither disavowed nor distanced himself from anti-Romney campaign ads which threatened or implied violence against Republicans.

    • Shortly after the recent eruption of anti-American violence in North Africa, Obama went to Las Vegas to do his debate preparation in a hotel…with a romanticized North Africa theme.

    • Said in an interview that the Muslim call to prayer was “the most beautiful sound in the world.”

    • Union boss and far-left activist Andy Stern has visitied Obama in the White House at least 53 times, at last count — greater access than any other private citizen.

    • Hosted at the White House many Islamist members of groups associated with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

    • Sponsored performances by and attended fundraisers with radical rappers like Michael Franti and Common, both of whose lyrics have in some cases been anti-police, anti-white, and anti-America.

    • Hired Timothy Geithner, who is documented as cheating on his own personal taxes, to be Secretary of the Treasury.

    • Told Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher that it was good to “spread the wealth around.”

    • Told small business owners nationwide in a 2012 speech that “you didn’t build that” — implying that they should not claim credit for their own success, since taxpayers (i.e. themselves and other business owners) had funded the national infrastructure.

    • Insulted the British people by rudely returning to them a bust of Churchill which previously had been a ceremonial gift on display at the White House; when later confronted on this inexplicable action, he lied about it.

    • Canceled plans to complete a missile defense shield in Poland, a move which was highly praised by Russia and Iran — the very nations whose missile threats would have been neutralized if the shield had been completed.

    • By loudly publicizing (for personal political gain) the identity of exact SEAL teams who had killed Osama bin Laden, Obama made them a target for reprisals by Islamists; a short time later 22 SEALS were shot down and killed in Afghanistan, their worst loss of life ever.

    • Established an extra-Constitutional top secret “kill list” of people (including Americans) Obama claims the right to kill on sight, and then bragged about it publicly.

    • Set up a special email account, “Flag@Whitehouse.gov,” to which Americans were supposed to inform the government of anyone they heard spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care overhaul. (This was the first of three different “spy on your friends and neighbors” programs.)

    • “Attack Watch” was Obama’s second Big Brother attempt, a Web site on which you would report “attacks” on Obama’s proposals and ideology; it was quickly shut down due to outrage and mockery.

    • Finally, Obama set up the “Truth Team” program which encouraged citizens to report to the government any friends or relatives they hear repeating “lies” about Obama. The Truth Team site still exists.

    • Twisted the arms of defense contractors to not issue layoff notices in early November, so as to avoid causing bad news for Obama right before the election — even though federal law (the “WARN Act”) requires such notices.

    • After the attacks on American interests in North Africa on September 11, 2012, Obama gave a speech to the U.N. and declared “The future must not belong to those who slander The Prophet of Islam” — transferring the blame from the attackers onto the makers of a film trailer that supposedly “offended” the Islamists.

    • Repeatedly snubbed and got into public tiffs with Benjamin Netanyahu, who as the leader of Israel is supposed to be Obama’s closest colleague in international affairs.

    • On May 19, 2011, Obama told Israel they must return to the 1967 borders as a pre-condition for continuing talks with the Palestinians — even though the status of the borders was the main issue the talks were supposed to address.

    • Encouraged politically biased hiring practices in the Justice Department.

    • Soon after taking office, Obama rescinded the “Mexico City Policy,” which previously had banned NGOs which are supported by American taxpayer funds from using those funds to perform abortions in foreign countries.

    • Attempted to force returning veterans to pay huge increases for their health coverage…as a way to generate more funding for his Obamacare provisions.

    • In June of 2011, he anointed his own underage daughters as “senior staff members” so that their vacation to Africa would be paid for with taxpayer money.

    • Interviews with high school classmates revealed that Obama was a heavy and frequent user of marijuana in his teenage years (not to mention his self-admitted cocaine use in college).

    • Played over 100 rounds of golf during his first three years in office, meaning that he was on the links close to 10% of the days he has been president.

    • Voted to allow partial-birth abortions not just once but three times in a row as an Illinois state senator.

    • The pastor whom Obama selected to give the national benediction at his 2009 inauguration recently declared that “all white people are going to Hell.”

    • Sided with Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime regarding the Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009, the first time ever that the U.S. formed a political alliance with socialist governments in Latin America.

    • Obama Administration OKed the nomination of Chas Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council (which coordinates intelligence reports from all government agencies), despite the fact that he was openly hostile to Israel and strongly favored Arabist goals. (He later withdrew under pressure.)

    • Chinese pianist Lang Lang played an offensively anti-American song at a 2011 White House dinner where Obama hosted Chinese president Hu Jintao, to the delight and amazement of the communist Chinese visitors, while Obama just sat there and smiled (the song’s Chinese lyrics describe Americans as “warmongering jackals”).

    • There was a great deal of (still unverified) suspicion that the company LightSquared received favorable treatment from the Obama administration for approval of its broadband technology which interfered with the GPS system; an Air Force general claimed he was pressured by the Obama administration to downplay his criticism of LightSquared’s technology in sworn testimony.

    • Obama’s Department of Energy awarded $529 million to Fisker Automotive to build their Karma hybrid electric cars — even though they are manufactured in Finland, cost over $100,000 each, and tend to explode.

    • When Inspector General Gerald Walpin discovered during a 2009 investigation that one of Obama’s political allies (the mayor of Sacramento) was misusing government funds for personal gain, Obama unceremoniously fired Walpin — even though rooting out fraud was the job description of the Inspector General.

    • More than once Obama made so-called “recess appointments” when the Senate was not actually in recess, which directly violates Constitutional rules about how appointments must be made; in each case it was his way of getting his political allies into certain key positions without them being vetted or approved by the Senate, as required.

    • After Nidal Malik Hasan massacred 13 people at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Ackbar” so as to become a martyr for Islam, the Obama administration refused to classify his action as “terrorism” and instead deemed it merely “workplace violence.”

    • Despite the fact that the Falkland Islands have been part of Great Britain since 1833 and that Great Britain is supposed to be our strongest ally, Obama essentially sided with Argentina in its new claim on the Falklands, not only by adopting the Argentine position that their status is open to negotiation, but even by (attempting to) refer to the islands by their Spanish name (Malvinas).

    • Convened the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (a.k.a. the Simpson-Boyles commission) in order to address a major economic crisis…and then summarily dismissed and ignored their recommendations.

    • Criticized the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning (about the Citizen’s United decision) during a State of the Union address, which many considered a dangerous precedent as it appeared to place political pressure on the court, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers; but his bullying seems to have later paid off, when the Supreme Court apparently altered its Obamacare decision so as to not ruffle any political feathers.

    • On April 27, 2009, Obama’s staff (possibly at his direction) ordered Air Force One to make an unnecessary very low flight over part of Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty, which many residents mistakenly assumed must be a second 9/11 attack in progress; turned out that it was just a stunt to get a photo op of Obama’s plane next to the Statue of Liberty.

    • Obama somehow managed to insert mentions of himself into the official biographies of earlier presidents on the White House Web site — even presidents from the 19th century. After public outcry, the narcissistic Obama mentions were quietly removed without comment.

    • Invariably and intentionally misquotes the Declaration of Independence in speeches, leaving out the words “by our Creator” in the famous passage “…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” which Obama always recites as “…are endowed with certain unalienable rights.”

    • In June of 2009, Obama’s Solicitor General (and now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan filed a legal brief to prevent the families of 9/11 victims from appealing their lawsuits against the Saudi royal family for financing the 9/11 attacks.

    • The 2009 National Christmas Tree in the White House was decorated with ornaments depicting Chairman Mao, a drag queen, and a picture of Mount Rushmore that included Obama’s own head next to George Washington’s.

    • Compelled Catholic and other religious organizations to provide health plans with free contraception, even though such requirements violate their rights of religious freedom and conscience.

    • It was revealed only after Obama became president that during the 1990s he was a leading member of the “New Party,” a socialist-aligned far-left radical group in Chicago.

    • Lied about his close associations with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers; pretended the two barely knew each other, when multiple sources document they were friends and close colleagues for years.

    • When Obama was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2009, he at first flubbed the oath of office, so he had to re-take it behind closed doors for his inauguration to be valid. He did so, but during this second, true inauguration in private, he purposely failed to place his hand on a Bible, as is traditional — the first president ever to not swear the oath of office on the Bible.

    • Obama’s own author bio in his literary agent’s catalog and on their Web site stated for 17 consecutive years that he was born in Kenya; this claim remained intact despite other portions of the bio being altered and updated repeatedly. It was only in 2007 after he decided to run for the presidency that the “born in Kenya” claim was taken down. The original info must necessarily have come from Obama himself; some theorize he likely falsely claimed foreign birth in order to gain admission or scholarships in college, and never bothered to fix his lie.

    • After winning the 2008 election but before being sworn in, Obama bombastically concocted the official-seeming “Office of the President-Elect” as if it was some kind of real government department; in fact, it was just a self-congratulatory title he made up to look important before he actually became president.

    • Came up with the bizarre euphemism “man-made disasters” to describe acts of terrorism — because he wants to downplay terrorism as a significant political issue.

    • For three years in a row his official budget proposals to Congress received exactly zero votes — not even a single vote from Democrats.

    • Relied on an Islamic fundamentalist militia group called “The Martyrs of the February the 17th Revolution Brigade” to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi — and they not only failed to prevent the attack but perhaps even joined in on it.

    • During the debate over Obamacare in 2009, Obama bluntly stated that doctors like to perform amputations rather than practice preventive medicine for no other reason than that they make a grater profit from amputations. The American College of Surgeons demanded an apology, which never arrived.

    • Since 2008 the Los Angeles Times has been in possession of a videotape showing Obama honoring and praising anti-Western anti-Israel academic Edward Said, but they have steadfastly refused to release it to this day, for no discernible reason other than their belief it would damage Obama’s reputation.

    • When the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe recently held a conference on human rights, Obama sent an American representative — Salam al-Marayati, a Truther who blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks and who also praises Hezbollah and Hamas. To the nations of Europe, al-Marayati spoke for all Americans on the topic of human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    RightandLeft

    Facts are just an inconvenience to some to waft away and replace with ideology and pathological hatred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Manolo (13,339 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t he be citing the Koran instead? http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/03/obama-campaign-releases-ad-citing-moral-biblical-background-administration-policies-1#ixzz2BDpgPxcT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Hey Luc.

    talking about hatred. Pathological or otherwise.
    Why do you hate yourself so much ?

    Ever considered the question baby ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. mikenmild (10,630 comments) says:

    You are doing well today Luc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Fairfacts Media (313) Says:
    November 4th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
    Here’s a few reasons why NOT to vote for Obama.

    Here is another reason. We do not live in the USA.

    He is way right of any mainstream politician in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Fairfacts Media
    Great post.

    Young Jack Tame will doubtless change his political tune as he matures.

    Jack will be gutted on Nov 7th

    It will be interesting to see how how spins the reasons why his messiah lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    Kea @ 5.15pm
    Oh I can google search fine, Kea. In fact all I did was google search exactly what you said.
    Now you seem to be changing what you said, but unfortunately for you it’s there in black and white with yourr 3.42pm post.
    Let me repeat it again, in caps this time as you seem to be having difficulty with what you said:
    BUSH GOT INTO POWER BECAUSE HE WAS POPULAR.

    Bush got into power for sure, but he wasn’t popular. He came second in the number of votes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    RightandLeft @6.13pm

    Well said, and right on the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Bush got into power for sure, but he wasn’t popular.

    He was in ’04 bc. Over 50% of the popular vote, as well (obviously) as taking the electoral colleges.

    What chance Obama getting over 50% to head into a 2nd term??? Looks like perhaps George W was more popular after all…

    [Incidentally, how does a balanced and objective NZ media - The DomPost in this case - report a result of an outright majority like Bush's 2nd term? Why as "Bush clings to power" of course. A shame that never got to a Tui billboard...]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mikenmild (10,630 comments) says:

    At this stage the odds still seem in favour of the incumbent. But I’d be in favour of this incumbent so maybe I’m just thinking wishfully like just about everyone on this thread.
    US election day is always great to follow live on line, so I’m just looking forward to Wednesday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    He might have been popular in 2004, bhudson, but that is not what Kea said. Here it is again: BUSH GOT INTO POWER BECAUSE HE WAS POPULAR.

    After 9/11 it is not surprising that the American people would swing towards their president, especially a president who was saying all the right things to appeal to a nation wanting revenge.

    It wasn’t until much later, the American people became more aware of how poorly Bush handled 9/11, and not surprisingly his popularity dropped then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Well not exactly bc at 6.57

    “They argue the best way to deal with this is smaller class sizes for struggling students to allow for more support and individualisation at school. They also want to see better funding for alternative and special education.”

    This is the system we have now. It is enormously expensive with a vast disproportionate amount of resources going into the lower end, compared to your bright and average kids which must suffer a mediocre education because teachers are expected to cater for the lower end IN THE SAME CLASS because many teachers are ideologically opposed to streaming or special needs schools. It stinks.

    “To say the teachers unions are for the status quo is just wrong.”

    Correct, the do a lot of good work, including supporting teachers victimised by ludicrous PC government policies and incompetent management in schools.

    “PPTA members work in schools trialling cutting edge teaching methods like Albany Senior High School.”

    Laugh out Fecken loud. ASHS is and absolute distant routs waste of money. If has no class rooms,and all students,from year 11 to 13 are expected to be taught in large halls where there is so much noise they can’t hear anything. It is a new age touchy feely experiment which will go the same way as other dope had schools,like mangawhau and western springs where kids rule the roost, don’t have to attend classes, smoke, drink, etc. ASHS struggle to get enrolments from the junior high school because the parents want to send the kids to a proper school.

    “Also to say that students today are performing at a lower level than in the past is a vast oversimplification.”

    But true nonetheless. The only reason we still rate,in OECD comparisons is because we’ve watered everything down to keep the graduation statistics up.

    Today we require much higher standards of students compared to a generation ago.

    WTF?

    NCEA Level 2 is now the minimum we expect of students before leaving school.

    Oh ha ha ha, but level 2 NCAA is only compatible to the old school cert.

    The new curriculum is world-leading and it focuses on learning skills rather than rote memorisation of material.

    This is what they used to say 40 years ago when I was at school. It’s fine in principle for,the bright ones but is another disastrous piece of rate learned spew which is seriously impeding the progress of low to average achieving students who could otherwise have got good jobs if teaching was still skills based instead of methods base. Now many kids don’t have the basic skills they need to interpret the material they find in their “research”.

    We are creating the skilled thinkers the 21st Century economy needs.

    …. See what I mean, regurgitated from your predecessors….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    It wasn’t until much later, the American people became more aware of how poorly Bush handled 9/11, and not surprisingly his popularity dropped then.

    Given the way the polls have headed,you could substitute “…Obama handled the economy..” and your statement would appear to also describe 2012 perfectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    bc (599) Says:
    November 4th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
    He might have been popular in 2004, bhudson, but that is not what Kea said. Here it is again: BUSH GOT INTO POWER BECAUSE HE WAS POPULAR.

    For once we agree bc !. Indeed I did say that. At one time he was one of the most popular presidents in American history. At his peak he was more popular than Obama. I supplied links in support of all this for your review.

    I admit I was surprised myself, but that is the reality.

    How do you explain the fact he was never defeated? A big “conspiracy” no doubt. Your view of Bush is simply what the media told you to think. It is not a reasoned position or even a real opinion. You are simply repeating what you have been told is the “correct” way to think. That is why when we look at the “evidence” your claims fall apart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    More voter intimidation, as the NAACP takes over a polling station and advocates for Obama, marching people to the front of the voting line – cutting in.

    HOUSTON, TX – Friday afternoon at an early polling place located at 6719 W. Montgomery Road in Houston, NAACP members were seen advocating for President Barack Obama according to volunteer poll watchers on location at the time.

    According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity group True the Vote, three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line. While wearing NAACP labeled clothing, members were “stirring the crowd” and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to promote President Barack Obama.

    After watching what was occurring, Rockford approached Polling Supervisor Rose Cochran about what she was seeing.

    “I went to the polling supervisor and let her know that it was not appropriate that they were in the building handing out water. She ignored me. I repeated my statement. She told me that she would handle it. She did nothing. I then went to the assistant supervisor and he stood up, walked over to another table and then sat down. I then walked into the waiting room and they were reloading another dolly with more cases of water,” Rockford said in a True the Vote incident report.

    After handing out water and advocating for President Obama, the NAACP members started handpicking and moving people to the front of a long voting line inside the polling place according to the incident report. After multiple complaints from voters about the line cutting, Rockford received a phone call from downtown telling her to “stand down.”

    “All of the sudden one of the clerks, Dayan Cohen, said that someone wanted to speak to me on the phone. It was someone from downtown. I got on the phone and she said she was from downtown and that I needed to stand down and that it was okay for the NAACP to be within 100 ft. and they could hand out water. I told her that the NAACP was inside the building, wearing the NAACP clothing and caps and were handing out water and moving people from the back of the lines to the front of the lines,” Rockford said.

    At this point, NAACP members were instructed to turn their clothing inside out, which they refused to do and said they weren’t going to stop their actions inside the polling place. Their behavior and actions to move people to the front of the line continued for the rest of the evening. Texas State Representative Sylvester Turner, a former Texas NAACP leader, was also seen outside the building talking with voters.

    “The NAACP basically ran this poll location and the judges did nothing about it,” Rockford said.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_location

    These cheaters will do anything to get Obama back in again, because they know he is losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    I think Obama’s recent appearances have had him looking a bit complacent. His body language hasn’t really aligned with his (usual) masterful oratory, That has him coming across as arrogant, condescending, patronising.

    That is all well and good for Democrat and Republican voters who aren’t going anywhere else, but if it registers the same with swing voters and ‘soft’ Democrats, he could find himself back on a passenger jet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The incredible media bias towards Bush turned me off the msm for good. It was a turning point. It is not that I was in favour of Bush, it was the blatant insulting bias that did it for me. It was one of the things that got me more interested in political events.

    They showed, on prime time NZ TV News, comedy shows mocking Bush. Compared photos of him with a monkey (try that with Obama!). Every death in Iraq was attributed to Bush and placed on the front page, even if it was inter faith fighting between various Muslim groups. The most minor slip-ups were breathlessly reported as leading news items.

    I was frankly insulted that they [media] would be so blatant in their unbalanced reporting and would even openly declare their preference for Obama or opposition to Bush. I decide what to think, not some bimbo on the TV. I want facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Reminder, that although Obama won in 2008, and it seemed a huge victory, it wasn’t by a landslide. He only won 52% of the popular vote.

    Washington – Democrat Barack Obama won the popular vote by a six-point margin of 52 to 46% for vanquished Republican rival John McCain, US networks said on Wednesday.

    Obama earned 62.98 million votes nationwide and McCain, 55.78 million, NBC reported.

    The tally according to Fox News was 62.95 million for Obama and 55.75 million for McCain.

    The winner of the popular vote does not always get the keys to the White House.

    http://www.news24.com/World/USElections/Obama-won-52-of-popular-vote-20081105

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Kea Strange that, you are arguing that the yanks have suffered over 4000 dead and twenty thousand wounded from Iraq attacking the USA ?
    It will be even better when the yanks invade Iran.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. bc (1,332 comments) says:

    I thought I did explain in my 7.20pm post why Bush was on a wave of popularity in 2004 and got re-elected, Kea. It’s all to do with 9/11.

    If he was able to run again in 2008, he would have been soundly defeated. Check out the approval rating graph in the link below:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110806/bushs-approval-rating-drops-new-low-27.aspx

    It’s a gallup poll so you can’t say that it is left-wing propoganda!!
    The surge in popularity spikes post-9/11. It is an obvious outlier, due entirely to 9/11.
    Then it’s all downhill after that, to a low of 27% in 2008.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rightandleft (629 comments) says:

    Kevin,

    That isn’t the system we have now. At the moment the govt is cutting funding to special and alternative education and mainstreaming even more students without providing matching teacher aide hours or smaller class sizes to make up for it. Mainstreaming just doesn’t work, so I agree with you there. Luckily my school does believe in streaming and in fact most schools I know of do, at least for the top and bottom students.

    Now personally I agree with you about Albany Senior, but what I’m always hearing from the right-wing on charter schools is that we have nothing to lose from giving things a try. I only disagree with them on charters because I’ve seen the research that says they have been tried already elsewhere and largely failed. With the Albany Senior model there is some evidence backing it, so let them have a go. It would drive me absolutely nuts as a teacher or a student, but maybe it works for some. ASHS is in direct competition with Glenfield, the Westlakes and even Rosmini/Carmel for the Catholics. If its methods don’t produce the results it will just keep shrinking. My main point was that the union isn’t totally averse to any experimenting, trialling of new methods in education, just against those which the research is soundly against.

    As for NCEA being watered down, that isn’t really fair. The old system very unfairly required a certain percentage of students to fail. Sixth Form Cert was almost completely pointless because the grades were linked to performance in School Cert the year before. The system was designed when there was a steady supply of low-skilled manufacturing jobs available but those days are long gone and we need to give students better skills before they leave school. The perception that today’s students are dumber than previously is not backed by statistics. Every generation of adults has complained about the stupidity or poorer standards of the next generation but in fact educational attainment has only been improving with each generation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    I see some Democrats have voted four times already!

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/nc-democrat-says-hes-voted-four-times-for-obama-already-will-vote-5th-time-on-election-day/

    No wonder Obama opposed efforts to make the voting system more secure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ok bc.

    Good to see you now acknowledge Bush’s popularity. You have come a long way, keep up the good work. Sure there were reasons for his popularity, just as there are reasons for Obama’s popularity.

    Sadly your good worked slipped with this little gem: “If he was able to run again in 2008, he would have been soundly defeated.”

    I gave an account of events that actually happened, with evidence. You can not try and discredit my facts with your speculation about things that never happened . Nice try though mate :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Such an unfair world. When a man talks dirty to a woman its considered sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man its $5.50/min (higher rates from mobiles).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Rightandleft

    Ok it seems we agree on most things. I know many teachers and my wife is one. the ppta has been very supportive of the teachers and the individual reps not ideologically driven. teachers as a group just want to teach better but are often hamstrung by PC government bureaucracy, incompetent management of the schools to a point bordering on corruption, and having to deal with social problems such as drugs, alcohol and supporting kids through their abortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a Maori outside a Welfare office.

    “Good man,” the fairy said, “I’ve been sent here by Prime Minister Key and told to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in South Auckland from the Hokianga with your wife and eight children”.

    The man told the fairy, “Well, where I come from we don’t have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them”.

    The fairy looked at the man’s almost toothless grin and — PING !– he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

    “What else?” asked the fairy, “Two more to go”.

    Rangi now got bolder. “I need a big house with a three-car garage on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live up North.. I want to bring them all down here” — and — PING !– in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three-car garage, a long driveway, and a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking a bay.

    “One more wish,” said the fairy, waving her wand.

    “Yes, one more wish. I want to be like a real New Zealander with good clothes instead of these torn clothes. And I want to have white skin like the majority of New Zealanders” —and — PING ! — The man was transformed – wearing worn-out jeans, a “Yeah Right” Tui T Shirt, and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon..

    “What happened to my new teeth?” he wailed. “Where is my new house?”

    THIS IS GOOD . . . …….. …….. …. … ………………….

    NO, ACTUALLY THIS IS VERY GOOD . …. . . ………….. …… ….

    The fairy said:
    “Tough shit Rangi, now that you are a white New Zealander you have to fend for yourself”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    The incredible media bias towards Bush turned me off the msm for good.

    What do you mean Kea? Bush 43 was the worst Pres ever. Bush 41 and Obama are currently competing for spots two and three in my book.

    On another topic, has anyone been following the recent news of explosive traces found on the plane that blew up killing the Polish President and many senior figures?

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i_VpUpDaiTZ48QBXITd7BfctB-eQ?docId=CNG.493b5bfef777e0c4e6e2103828c1614e.331

    When a woman talks dirty to a man its $5.50/min (higher rates from mobiles).

    I’ve never dialled an 0900 myself nasska, what’s it like? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Reid,

    You’re not seriously saying that you are only now thinking that perhaps it wasn’t a pure accident?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/34335-toys-apps-lead-top-10.html

    Toys with apps.
    aahhhhh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Reid, actually Bush 43 wasn’t that bad, and I think history will show that.
    Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. nasska (10,632 comments) says:

    Reid

    …”I’ve never dialled an 0900 myself nasska, what’s it like?”…..

    Buggered if I can tell you. By the time I could afford a phone bill like that I’d sort of lost interest in talking about it anyway. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    How can you support a ” leader” who has so obviously lied to his people for political
    reasons such has Obama lied to his people about Chris Stevens assasination and Bengahzhi.

    Why would you support a proven liar ?

    Probably the same people that in New Zealand sucked it up when Helen Clark looked into theTV cameras
    and lied to New Zealand with a bare face, over and over again.

    How can you have such political eye blinkers, and such low, non existing morals that you
    still will support a proven liar. ?

    Obama has now been found out to be a liar.

    The American People are not that stupid.
    Watch how they prove to be a Great Republic. 6/11

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Thought for evening.

    Handle every stressful situation like a dog.

    Piss on it and walk away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    First intelligent comment you have ever made on Kiwiblog Viking2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. RF (1,263 comments) says:

    Apparently TV One is reporting a new poll resullt with labour slipping. What else is new.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    New AB’s jersey.

    http://screencast.com/t/4xwemQb7Ip8G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Coming to a motorway near you. New design Merc.

    http://screencast.com/t/1s5JIRxEpj

    http://screencast.com/t/e4905IUxX5a

    http://screencast.com/t/zky7HOMkGhE

    http://screencast.com/t/zky7HOMkGhE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    bereal (2,257) Says:
    November 4th, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    First intelligent comment you have ever made on Kiwiblog Viking2

    Thanks. Consider yourself pissed upon by a great big dirty stinking dog.

    :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    A truly interesting TRMS (The Rachel Maddow Show) from yesterday (Friday Yank time)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

    An interview with Nate Silver

    A report of Florida’s Republicans doing their best to rig the result of the election

    A report of how Republicans close down inconvenient reports, with examples including how terrorist attacks rose with the advent of the War on Terror, adverse charter schools results and a Congressional Research Service report dissing the right wing wet dream that low marginal tax rates for the top income earners drives GDP growth i.e. no relationship

    The summary of that report:

    Income tax rates have been at the center of recent policy debates over taxes. Some policymakers
    have argued that raising tax rates, especially on higher income taxpayers, to increase tax revenues
    is part of the solution for long-term debt reduction. For example, the Senate recently passed the
    Middle Class Tax Cut (S. 3412), which would allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire
    for taxpayers with income over $250,000 ($200,000 for single taxpayers). The Senate recently
    considered legislation, the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 (S. 2230), that would implement the
    “Buffett rule” by raising the tax rate on millionaires.

    Other recent budget and deficit reduction proposals would reduce tax rates. The President’s 2010
    Fiscal Commission recommended reducing the budget deficit and tax rates by broadening the tax
    base—the additional revenues from broadening the tax base would be used for deficit reduction
    and tax rate reductions. The plan advocated by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan
    that is embodied in the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 112), the Path to Prosperity, also
    proposes to reduce income tax rates by broadening the tax base. Both plans would broaden the tax
    base by reducing or eliminating tax expenditures.

    Advocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase
    saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher
    tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich
    are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would
    moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report
    attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest
    income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the
    tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of
    the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic
    Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

    Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
    is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
    1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
    increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
    1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
    evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
    top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
    rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
    tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
    of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
    increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
    recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
    regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
    the economic pie is sliced

    Yep, the GOP pressured the non-partisan Congressional think tank to withdraw a most inconvenient report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    How do you know that those odds were wrong? Or to phrase it another way, what are the statistical chances that his prediction was right?

    Well, there’s this thing called reality, where the GOP winning 67 seats was 100% fact!

    Or to phrase it another way, Nate’s claim to fame was that he got 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008: I have not heard anybody asking what the statistical chances were that his prediction was right in that case.

    That’s what so funny about people using Nate. None of them gave a stuff about that in 2008. All they cared about was that he made predictions that matched reality. When we look at 2010 where his predictions did not, all of sudden things are “complex” and lessons in high-school probability theory are required.

    Snark aside, I think Luc has actually explained how probability theory works – inside the model. Great for physics where experiments can be run several million times and the model adjusted.

    For unique events like political elections, not so much.

    And that’s the argument that Jay Cost and Stephen Green are making. Silver’s approach looks very scientific but actually it’s not a good idea to build and rely on some sort of statistical probability model for an election. You can have some fun running up and down the scales of probability – 50% plus certainty the GOP will get 39 seats, 25% probability they’ll get 60 plus – and so forth. But it’s not very useful, even as a punditry argument tool, if the model has not actually captured reality.

    Much better to use, as Green puts it, some judgement about things like turnout in making the predictions. If you want to then apply probabilities knock yourself out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    You’re not seriously saying that you are only now thinking that perhaps it wasn’t a pure accident?

    No I’ve always read it wasn’t bhudson. As they say in politics, if it happens, it was planned to happen. It was one of those things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1TWiC7ik0

    Reid, actually Bush 43 wasn’t that bad, and I think history will show that. Obama is the worst president the U.S has ever had.

    Yes he was. He invaded a country that wasn’t responsible for 911 which cost a trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, for nothing, he actively promoted deregulation in the markets, he used obscure mechanisms to stop attempts to stop derivatives (Eliot Spitzer), all of which built on the bubble Clinton had allowed Greenspan to amass since the Dot-bomb bubble, which Bush’s entire team of economists “failed” to notice all of which resulted in the GFC which didn’t need to happen. That’s not a very good record, compared to any president.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Fletch (6,010 comments) says:

    Reid, Bush invaded for a very good reason. All the information he had, told him that Saddam had WMD’s – and most other countries of the world believed it, too.

    Bush got congressional approval twice to go to war, in contrast with Obama going into Libya off his own bat with no approval at all – and look where it got us. A country likely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, and dead Americans.

    Bush did what he thought was right – and he played by the book, getting approval the way he was supposed to.

    If anyone’s the warmonger, it’s Obama, who aided rebels likely affiliated with Al Qaeda. He did the same with Egypt. Now Egypt is likely run by the Muslim Brotherhood and the country will probably come under Sharia Law as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Reid (15,918 comments) says:

    Reid, Bush invaded for a very good reason. All the information he had, told him that Saddam had WMD’s – and most other countries of the world believed it, too.

    Well according to the biography of the CIA Director when 911 happened, the Administration cherry-picked the intelligence. One rumour was that Powell didn’t stand for office in the second term because he was pissed off at being setup for the ridiculous mobile bio-weapon trucks at the UN. That was the extent of the cherry-picking.

    If anyone’s the warmonger, it’s Obama, who aided rebels likely affiliated with Al Qaeda.

    Yes I know Fletch. Obama’s a Muslim, that’s why.

    But see what I mean about the quality of leadership. And people think Romney will be better? No, he won’t. Not. At. All.

    Romney in my looking glass may well turn out to be the worst President ever, and won’t that be something.

    BTW, did you know that one of the allegations for the real reason Iraq was invaded is that Saddam had a Stargate, which is a wormhole device that bends spacetime allowing instant inter-stellar travel just like on the TV series? The reason why this was an issue is because the Roswell crash wasn’t aliens but future humans from 30,000 years hence who’d come back to warn us of a critical phase in our development.

    The issue was that in 2012 planet Niburu, which intersects our orbit every 32,000 years is due. Here’s a leaked NASA simulation:

    The timeline we were on involved catastrophic interaction between Niburu, our active Stargates and the core of the Earth, resulting in geologic upheaval and destruction of immense magnitude. Therefore all Stargates had to be dismantled well in advance, and Saddam didn’t want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    A truly interesting TRMS (The Rachel Maddow Show) from yesterday (Friday Yank time)

    So you’re the one watching.

    And of course we’re back to the left-wing wet dream of super-high tax rates for the rich.

    Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%.

    Decades have passed since the Laffer Curve became common knowledge – but not for Maddow and the gang. I don’t know if anybody has informed her, but that 90% tax rate was first cut by the Kennedy administration because they needed higher tax revenues, and even before Laffer became known the economists of the day argued that lowering the rate would actually increase the revenue. They were right and Kennedy’s tax cut (the highest level down to 70%) boosted revenues beyond what had been deemed possible by economic growth alone.

    And since then the same thing has happened repeatedly when tax rates were dropped, most recently as a result of the Bush tax cuts in 2001. In fact in 2005, Federal tax revenues hit $2.15 trillion, the highest in US history. However, there probably is an upper boundary to the level of tax revenue that can be expected and in the USA. As the following article shows, with a great chart:

    From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9%, averaging 16.5% of GDP over these 80 years. This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

    This seems to apply whether one is talking about individual income taxes, capital gains taxes, or corporate taxes – which is why the Canadian corporate tax rate is 15%, having recently been cut from 16.5%. In the USA it’s 35%. Canadians eh, capitalists red in tooth and claw.

    I did love this bit immediately following the tax rates history:

    The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%.

    That would be the 1950′s when Asia and Europe were still recovering from being wrecked in WWII and the USA was really the only major economy standing. It would have been hard not to get those sort of growth figures.

    Funny how they skipped right over the stagflation decade of the 1970′s (the one with still high tax rates in place across the board), the go-go 1980′s (the one with dramatically lower tax rates), and the strong 1990′s (the one with tax rates that increased slightly), before arriving in the double OO’s. And of course we don’t see the start and end points for what counts as that decade, which started and ended in a recession. Cute way to cover the fact that after the Bush tax cuts the US experienced six years of economic growth from 2001 to 2007: 52 months of job growth to produce 8 million new jobs and almost all of that GDP growth rate. Quite an achievement after the Clinton recession and 9/11: pity the GOP let spending increase so much, followed by the even crazier Democrats in the House and Senate from 2007 onward.

    In short – hard to pin lowered GDP on lowered tax rates.

    There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth.

    Great, so increasing tax rates won’t spark economic growth. Which leaves us with all the arguments about a widening wealth gap because the rich got bigger cuts. There’s just one little problem with that theory: The Bush tax cuts shifted the burden further to the rich.

    But it’s an irrelevant argument to non-Keynesians anyway, because the myth is that tax cuts “put more money in people’s pockets”, when the fact is that tax cuts cause them to plow the extra money into wealth creation. That’s productive behaviour – which is what really drives an economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Tom

    I don’t argue for super high tax rates for the rich and Maddow would fit very comfortably into the Nats over here. She’s a bit of a war whore, too, so you should get off on that! I do argue for higher tax rates than we have currently. To support our increasingly unequal society, those who garner the wealth should pay the most to keep society civil.

    The Lafter curve is widely recognized as junk science. You are better than that.

    There are lots of graphics in the report to refute your cherry picking nonsense.

    The Bush years

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

    Not a bad summary, OK for a blog post. Better than Heritage. The FauxNews of FauxResearch.

    when the fact is that tax cuts cause them to plow the extra money into wealth creation. That’s productive behaviour – which is what really drives an economy.

    Yes Tom. Let’s ignore the fact that the empirical evidence just doesn’t support that statement. Higher inequality depresses economic growth aka wealth creation. Lots of good studies now to support that, including, of course, The Spirit Level.

    Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus. Tax cuts to the rich are the least efficient. Tax cuts to lower income earners are most stimulative but direct government, or government directed expenditure is the best bet. Not perfect, but that’s the human way.

    Say, Tom, is it true that we are on the same page now as regards climate change? Let me know if you have entered the real world os science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. tom hunter (4,374 comments) says:

    The Lafter curve is widely recognized as junk science.

    It’s Laffer – and it might have helped if you’d provided a link for that assertion as it’s one of the stupidest you’ve ever made – and in your case that’s saying something.

    The Laffer curve is entirely mainstream because it derives from the very simple fact that tax – like anything else – involves supply and demand effects, and the following common-sense observations:

    – Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate;

    – Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains; and

    – Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

    Pretty simple really. That’s why tax cuts raise more money than tax rate increases: counter-intuitive but proven. The main arguments are around the “sweet spot” of the curve being revenue-maximisation vs economic growth. As Martin Feldstein of Harvard said:

    Why look for the rate that maximizes revenue? As the tax rate rises, the “deadweight loss” (real loss to the economy) rises. So as the rate gets close to maximizing revenue the loss to the economy exceeds the gain in revenue…. I dislike budget deficits as much as anyone else. But would I really want to give up say $1 billion of GDP in order to reduce the deficit by $100 million? No. National income is a goal in itself. That is what drives consumption and our standard of living.

    When you agree that super-high tax rates won’t work, you’re actually agreeing with the Laffer Curve.

    Better than Heritage. The FauxNews of FauxResearch.

    Shorter Luc: I hate that source but I got nuthin to argue against it’s facts and figures.

    Tax cuts are an inefficient stimulus.

    They’re not intended as a spending “stimulus” – and after the colossal failure of Obama’s Stimulus and his admission that there was not such a thing as “shovel-ready jobs” (which he’d have already known if he’d had even a little practical executive experience in government) – the implication that the government is an efficient stimulator of the economy is a sick joke. Even from Keynesian viewpoint, they’d have done better to shove that money straight into people’s pockets – which would be an effective tax cut.

    Yes Tom. Let’s ignore the fact that the empirical evidence just doesn’t support that statement. Higher inequality depresses economic growth aka wealth creation. Lots of good studies now to support that, including, of course, The Spirit Level.

    The empirical evidence is that countries with much higher levels of inequality than us have higher levels of economic growth if they know how to organise a lawful, capitalist economy. China is the most obvious but India and Brazil are up there too. Which is funny because the only link you have to back this up -The Spirit Level excluded countries like that – was utterly destroyed when it was presented. And Saunders was not the only one.

    I see you in those comments as well, behaving as you are here, and indeed anywhere you comment: blustering assertions backed by nothing.

    By contrast I have this:

    Cutting sales and property tax rates generally induces smaller feedback effects because taxpayers do not respond by substantially expanding their purchases or home-buying. Income taxes have a higher feedback effect. Nobel Prize-winning economist Ed Prescott has shown a strong cross-national link between lower income tax rates and higher work hours.[9] Investment taxes have the highest feedback effects because investors quickly move to avoid higher-taxed investments. Not surprisingly, history shows that higher investment taxes deeply curtail investment and consequently raise little (if any) new revenue.

    I put the Nobel Prize winning bit in there because I know how impressed you with that.

    Say, Tom, is it true that we are on the same page now as regards climate change? Let me know if you have entered the real world os science.

    At first I thought that was utterly off-topic, and then I saw some of the comments about you from The Spirit Level thread:, where you got so badly beaten up:

    The Spirit Level has been criticised by prominent academics from the Left and Right. Even people who agree with the premise admit that the book doesn’t makes its case. You are ignoring all of them in favour of the people who have fabricated evidence that agrees with your biases.

    You read some of the questions, saw some of the answers, but didn’t understand them, and missed the follow up questions where the original questioners pointed out that the “answers” didn’t really address the questions.

    Climate models. Election models. Economic models. You constantly imply that you understand this stuff but when pressed you clearly don’t – and the sad/funny aspect of this is that when you’re confronted by people who do have backgrounds in science, stats, math and so forth, you actually don’t even understand how badly you’ve shown yourself up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. RightNow (6,647 comments) says:

    Luc, I’m really disappointed you ran away and didn’t carry this on. Quitter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.